I've just started reading Sri Guru and His Grace, by B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. This morning I read the section titled "Dead Mantras," which begins on page 50. At the very end of the section, Maharaja says:
We have to follow the spirit; otherwise after Jahnava Devi, the wife of Lord Nityananda, up to Vipina Goswami, from whom Bhaktivinoda Thakur took initiation, there are so many unknown lady gurus. Through them, the mantra came to Vipina Goswami, and from him Bhaktivinoda Thakur received the mantra. We accept Bhaktivinoda Thakur, but should we count all those ladies in our disciplic succession? What was their realization?
Divorced from context, it seems to me that Maharaja is here dismissing the idea of "count[ing] all those ladies in our disciplic succession." (And, in fact, I've seen this quote used to dismiss the idea of female diksa-gurus.) But in the context provided by the rest of this section, I have a hard time concluding that to be Maharaja's intention. When I read that last paragraph I was actually quite startled by how much it seemed to contradict the mood and message of what came before it.
For instance, Maharaja says in the first paragraph of the same section:
So, the very gist of the guru-parampara, the disciplic succession, is siksa, the spiritual teaching, and wherever it is to be traced, there is guru. One who has the transcendental eye, the divine eye, will recognize the guru wherever he appears. One who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity—he is guru. Otherwise the guru-parampara is only a body parampara: a succession of bodies. Then the caste brahmanas, the caste goswamis, will continue with their trade, because body after body they are getting the mantra, but their mantra is dead. We are after a living mantra, and wherever we can trace the living tendency for a higher type of devotional service we shall find that there is our guru. One who has that sort of vision awakened will be able torecognize the guru wherever he may appear.
This excerpt suggests to me an emphasis on essence over form. Regardless of Maharaja's use of the masculine pronoun, it seems to clearly support the idea that the parampara can flow through anyone (male or female) "who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity," and that to think otherwise would reduce a transcendental lineage to "a body parampara: a succession of bodies." (That phrase on its own seems to do away with the notion that only men can serve as diksa-gurus, otherwise we have "a body parampara: a succession of [male] bodies."
Maybe I'm reading too much into the statement about "dead mantras"? After all, Jagannatha Das Babaji was Bhaktivinoda Thakura's siksa- not diksa-guru. Perhaps the statement is meant to de-emphasize the importance of the diksa line coming from Vipina Goswami, and the "unknown lady gurus" are simply victims of a sort of collateral damage from that argument? If the idea is to seek the living mantra over the dead one, I can't understand why a living mantra can only come from a body of a particular gender.
11
I've just started reading Sri Guru and His Grace, by B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. This morning I read the section titled "Dead Mantras," which begins on page 50. At the very end of the section, Maharaja says:
Divorced from context, it seems to me that Maharaja is here dismissing the idea of "count[ing] all those ladies in our disciplic succession." (And, in fact, I've seen this quote used to dismiss the idea of female diksa-gurus.) But in the context provided by the rest of this section, I have a hard time concluding that to be Maharaja's intention. When I read that last paragraph I was actually quite startled by how much it seemed to contradict the mood and message of what came before it.
For instance, Maharaja says in the first paragraph of the same section:
This excerpt suggests to me an emphasis on essence over form. Regardless of Maharaja's use of the masculine pronoun, it seems to clearly support the idea that the parampara can flow through anyone (male or female) "who possesses knowledge of absolute divine love in purity," and that to think otherwise would reduce a transcendental lineage to "a body parampara: a succession of bodies." (That phrase on its own seems to do away with the notion that only men can serve as diksa-gurus, otherwise we have "a body parampara: a succession of [male] bodies."
Maybe I'm reading too much into the statement about "dead mantras"? After all, Jagannatha Das Babaji was Bhaktivinoda Thakura's siksa- not diksa-guru. Perhaps the statement is meant to de-emphasize the importance of the diksa line coming from Vipina Goswami, and the "unknown lady gurus" are simply victims of a sort of collateral damage from that argument? If the idea is to seek the living mantra over the dead one, I can't understand why a living mantra can only come from a body of a particular gender.
My top-of-the-head response: I think you're on the right track to begin with, Acyuta. It's far too easy to take the comment about "lady gurus" out of context, as we have seen in the case of those in ISKCON who scream that it is impossible that women, at least those who aren't directly svarupa sakti, could ever become agents of Bhakti-devi. These are folks who otherwise would never get within five or seven miles of quoting Srila Sridhara Maharaja. But all of a sudden they're all excited about a sentence or two he spoke. Until you put them in context.
The context, of course, is the essence of disciplic succession, that the live current is teaching siddhanta. I don't think we can say that the mantras Bhaktivinoda Thakura received from Vipina Vihari Goswami were dead. But it is the siksa that is the life of guru parampara. BVT celebrated the mercy of Vipina Vihari Goswami throughout his life; I have never seen anything he wrote that didn't express his deep gratitude. But he found even more substance in his association with Jagannatha das babaji. We should take note and follow his example, happily accepting the most substantial connection with Bhakti-devi wherever we find it, remaining ever grateful to everyone else who has mercifully connected us with the guru parampara.
When asked if women can be gurus Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja replied, “Yes, if she sincerely feels that she can help others, she may.”
But the idea of dead mantras requires some discussion. Sastra explains that mantras need to be empowered by the guru, except, however, Krsna mantras, the principle of which is he 18 syllable Krsna mantra (Gopala mantra). At the same time, a Krsna mantra received that is not supported by siska often does not take one very far. In the time of Bhaktivinoda it was common for gurus to give Krsna mantras, so called gurus who themselves were not properly acquainted with gaudiya siddhanta. Thus Bhaktivinoda Thakura sought to rectify this with his emphasis on siksa, perhaps most apparent in his prolific literary contribution, the likes of which was uncommon at that time. Of course there are examples of Krsna mantras working wonders without siksa, as in the case of Sanatana Prabhu's Gopa Kumara in Brihat-bhagavatamrta. But even he required siksa along the way, which he received from Narada and others. And Gopa Kumara/Sarupa certainly gave considerable siksa to the Mathura brahmin (his own disciple) as well in order to support the Krsna mantra the brahmin had received.
Thank you for the replies. I appreciate the insight.
I assume that this book, like so many made available in our lineage over the last several decades, is produced largely from transcripts of lectures and personal conversations. At least the frequent question and answer format suggests that to be the case. In my opinion, the sort of ambiguity brought up in my original question is a common difficulty of that format; what may have been perfectly clear to a given audience at a specific place and time may be lost in translation/transcription.
I hesitate to use the word "rare"...At least it's less frequently the case that our contemporary acaryas sit down and put pen to paper (or digits to keyboard) and carefully fashion a literary work from top to bottom. Even Srila Prabhupada's books are largely transcriptions in the sense that he sat and dictated his thoughts (guided by the acarya's commentaries) for immediate transcription and editing. I think that makes for a significant difference in the result. But I digress...
The important thing, as you both point out, is the living process that takes place in a guided interpretation of the sastra, through siksa. Unfortunately, I'm just coming from an environment where siksa is largely misunderstood (if not feared or vilified, or simply unavailable). And I'm starting to feel it is my primary lack in life.